說無垢稱經疏 3.361

3.361

贊曰：此別詰也。空理義言：若是體有之行相者，即與外道五通無別，云何名內？等者，相似無別之義。以執為有世俗諦故。若體是無之行相者，即是無為。無為真諦，性皆空故，如何有見？應理義云？若有虛妄分別之行相者，即與外道五通無別，彼從虛妄分別生故，三界心心所皆虛妄分別故。若無虛妄分別之行相者，即是無為真如之類，不應有見。真如雖有，無行相故，不能有見。觀其此問，且問聲聞佛之天眼，亦應雙問佛天眼，通心心所故，非無行相；非是虛妄分別心故，非有行相。不同前問，故無有失。

The Commentary says: This is the specific cross-examination. According to the principle of emptiness: if it is a mental mark whose substantial entity exists, then it is no different from the five supernormal knowledges of the non-Buddhists; how could it be called internal? The word 'equal' has the meaning of being similar and non-different, because conventional truth is grasped as existing. If it is a mental mark whose substantial entity does not exist, then it is unconditioned. Since the nature of unconditioned ultimate truth is entirely empty, how could there be seeing? According to the rationalist principle: if it possesses the mental mark of false discrimination, then it is no different from the five supernormal knowledges of the non-Buddhists, because those arise from false discrimination, and all minds and mental factors in the three realms are false discriminations. If it lacks the mental mark of false discrimination, then it is of the category of unconditioned tathatā, and there should be no seeing. Although tathatā exists, because it lacks mental marks, it cannot possess seeing. Looking at this question, it provisionally asks about the śrāvaka's divine eye. One should also examine the Buddha's divine eye symmetrically: because it pervades the mind and mental factors, it is not without mental marks; because it is not a mind of false discrimination, it is not with mental marks. Since it is not the same as the former question, there is no fault.